.png)
It is perhaps not the time for a show about white-guy cops who break the rules to keep the US safe. And yet, that’s what CBS is giving us with “CIA,” a boilerplate spy thriller that doesn’t so much not read the room as exist for the living rooms of twenty+ years ago.
The premise is this: CIA operative Colin Glass (Tom Ellis) needs an FBI buddy to operate on U.S. soil. The powers that be–aka CIA leader Nikki Reynard (Necar Zaedgan) and FBI corner-desk haver Jubal Valentine (Jeremy Sisto)–draft Bill Goodman (Nick Gehlfuss) for the job. In case you’re wondering who’s who, CIA Colin is the bad-boy rule breaker, and FBI Bill is called a “boy scout” more than once in the pilot. Together, they stop terrorist plots.
In the first episode, that includes working with a Venezuelan asset in New York, who Colin “saved” from his own country. Honestly, the idea that the CIA, infamous for destroying democratic states across Latin America, gets to play an unquestionably good hero here had my eyes rolling so far back that my optic nerve was very grateful they only gave critics one episode to screen for review.
So yeah, don’t expect complex geopolitical questions from this one. “CIA” doesn’t even appear to interrogate why the CIA, made for spying on and disrupting nation states, doesn’t typically (or straight-up shouldn’t) mess around inside the U.S., but that’s the show we’re in. It’s as if the last couple of decades hadn’t happened. There’s no hint of the conversation the nation is currently having about the federal government’s domestic overreach, no political nuance whatsoever.
The closest we get is a moment where Colin and Bill are first confronting each other. Nikki, as their lead, mitigates the tension by saying, “Why don’t we all put everything back in our pants and focus?” If that strikes you as edgy gender politics, then “CIA” may be the show for you. If it seems like the type of faux provocation that had its moment before HBO started experimenting with its name, well, that tells you everything you need to know.
On the upside, the show does better with an LGBTQ subplot that manages to humanize, rather than tokenize. The action sequences are also serviceable. The stakes are high–people foam at the mouth, New York is threatened, a sympathetic helicopter pilot is in danger–and while many of the beats are predictable, the resolutions still feel good. Heart rate goes up; heart rate goes down. There’s a bit of fun spycraft as well, with some undercover ops, secret relationships, and off-the-books doctors.
To be fair, Ellis and Gehfluss do well with their respective stock characters. The camera particularly loves Ellis, and he commands the screen whenever he’s on it. That said, the pilot doesn’t give him much more to do than stomp about–although his character does get a couple of glimmers of complexity. Only future episodes will tell.
Still, a show can have those elements and also be thoughtful! But “CIA” isn’t reaching for “Homeland” or “The Americans” territory. Its ambition is more “CSI: Miami.”
Which is fine. You do you, CBS. But I don’t think “CIA” is going to break through. It’s decidedly too milquetoast for that. No, this is a series for an imagined audience who still has bunny ears, chasing a network signal. It’s not for our cut-cord reality where we have countless choices of what to watch. Certainly, if you want to start a new spy show, there are better options. Same for a network procedural–let me suggest “Will Trent” or CBS’s own “Matlock” if a throwback vibe suits you.
Because the thing is, not every show needs to be genre-pushing, thought-provoking art. But if you’re not going to make something new, you do at least need to make something quality. And an important part of quality is understanding the audience, moment, and subject matter. “CIA” does none of that.
Might the fans of “NCIS: Sydney” tune in because it’s on after “FBI”? Yes, but I’d hardly call that a success.
One episode screened for review. Premieres tonight, February 23 on CBS.
from Roger Ebert https://ift.tt/NXWZji1
.png)
